Machine learning techniques for independent gait recovery prediction in acute anterior circulation ischemic stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to develop and validate a machine learning-based predictive model for gait recovery in patients with acute anterior circulation ischemic stroke. METHODS: Between May and November 2023, 237 patients with acute anterior circulation ischemic stroke were enrolled. Patients were randomly divided into training and validation sets at a 7:3 ratio. Thirty-one medical characteristics were collected, and the Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO) regression was applied to screen predictor variables. Predictive models were developed using the Random Survival Forest (RSF) and COX regression methods. The optimal model was identified based on C-index values. The SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) method was employed to interpret the RSF model globally and locally. RESULTS: Ten predictors were identified through LASSO regression, including age, gender, periventricular white matter hyperintensities (PVWMH), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS), enlarged perivascular spaces in basal ganglia (BG-EPVS), lacunes, parietal infarction, basal ganglia infarction, and Timed Up & Go (TUG) test score. The C-index values of the COX regression and RSF models were 0.741 and 0.761 in the training set and 0.705 and 0.725 in the validation set, respectively. SHAP analysis of the RSF model identified BG-EPVS, TUG, MoCA, age, and PVWMH as the top five most influential predictors of gait recovery. CONCLUSION: The RSF model demonstrated superior performance to the COX regression model in predicting gait recovery, offering a reliable tool for clinical decision-making regarding stroke patients' prognoses.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".